Proceedings under section 153A were challenged because the approval under section 153D was allegedly vitiated by total non-application of mind. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court order and dismissed the Special Leave Petition, leaving that order undisturbed.

Jurisdiction over scrutiny notices under section 143(2) arises where one tax officer issued the notice and another completed the assessment under section 143(3). The central issue is whether an assessee may challenge either officer's authority despite provisions that cure certain procedural defects and limit objections to notice defects. Sections 292B and 292BB are relevant to the validity of the notice and the resulting assessment. Questions concerning the officers' respective jurisdiction and the operation of these defect-curing provisions remain for consideration in appellate tax proceedings.

Limitation for completing a fresh assessment after remand arose under sections 153(3) and 153(4), including whether failure to complete the assessment within the prescribed period results in deemed acceptance of the return. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment and dismissed the special leave petition, leaving that judgment undisturbed. Pending applications were also disposed of.

For GST appeals, the prescribed statutory pre-deposit must be paid, but an appeal is treated as filed in law only when the final acknowledgement is issued under the appellate rules. Where the Registry identifies non-payment as a defect, payment made within the permitted rectification period and before final acknowledgement satisfies the pre-deposit requirement. Initial non-payment therefore does not invalidate the appeal when the defect is cured before the final acknowledgement is issued.

Documents already relied upon in the show cause notice were treated as not constituting additional evidence when sought to be placed on record in appeal. The related proposed ground was regarded as corroborative of those documents rather than a new ground. The request to place the documents on record and amend the appeal was allowed. Further authorities could be cited, and reliance on authorities previously cited could be withdrawn without objection.

The First Appellate Authority's power to condone delay under Section 107 is confined to the statutory outer limit; constitutional orders issued on particular facts cannot enlarge that jurisdiction. Condonation beyond that limit is ultra vires. Restoration of cancelled GST registrations by the Department, followed by taxpayers resuming business and complying with obligations, leaves no effective relief in a subsequent departmental challenge seeking annulment. Implementing restoration and then challenging it engages the bar against approbating and reprobating. Revocation under Section 30 and an appeal against cancellation under Section 107 are independent remedies, so inability to apply for revocation within the Rule 23 period does not bar the statutory appeal. Restored registrations therefore remain undisturbed.

Section 107 confines the First Appellate Authority's power to condone delay to the prescribed appeal period plus the statutorily permitted further period; equitable considerations and High Court powers under Article 226 cannot enlarge that jurisdiction. Delay condoned beyond the outer limit is therefore beyond jurisdiction. Implementation of registration-restoration orders may nevertheless make a departmental challenge ineffective where restoration has altered parties' positions, enabled continuing compliance, and created genuine intervening transactions. Revocation under Rule 23 and appeal against cancellation operate as alternative remedies, so inability or failure to seek revocation does not bar a statutory appeal.

Section 129 of the CGST Act does not sustain a confiscatory penalty for return transit of fully duty-paid, accounted imported goods to a customs warehouse after an aborted delivery where no intent to evade tax is established. Although section 68 and rule 138 require movement documentation, absence of a fresh e-way bill, without discrepancies in quantity or description, diversion, unrecorded sale, or revenue loss, is a bona fide procedural lapse. Such a default attracts only the general penalty under section 125. Jurisdictional precedent treating bona fide transit-documentation failures as outside section 129 applies, while authorities involving deliberate commercial non-compliance are distinguishable. Consequential refund and release relief follows.

Section 112(3) confines a departmental challenge to points authorised by the Commissioner, preventing an authorised officer from raising an omitted objection to IGST credit utilisation. Priority utilisation of IGST credit under the statutory framework does not create unjust enrichment where equivalent unutilised CGST and SGST credit remains available to debit the refund amount. Judicial invalidation of the ocean-freight IGST reverse-charge levy operates retrospectively unless expressly limited, rendering the levy void from inception. Taxpayers who were not parties to the invalidating litigation may rely on that declaration to seek refund, subject to finality exceptions, with statutory interest for delayed payment.

Input tax credit claims in pending FY 2017-18 proceedings require verification of invoices, receipt of supplies, payment records, supplier-side tax compliance, books and reconciliation material. A numerical mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A cannot by itself justify denial of credit under the prescribed verification procedure. Chartered Accountant certificates may serve as corroborative evidence where correlated with contemporaneous records. First appellate rejection for non-appearance, without determining credit eligibility and tax liability on merits, fails to provide a reasoned adjudication consistent with natural justice. Fresh determination should consider the certificate, invoices, ledger records and reconciliation material.

Assignment of leasehold rights in land allotted by an industrial development corporation for lump-sum consideration is characterised as a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property, not a taxable supply of services under GST. Consequently, GST is not leviable on such assignment. The entry for other miscellaneous services does not cover the transfer of these leasehold rights. This treatment follows binding jurisdictional precedent, which continues to apply unless stayed or recalled; an intention to seek review does not displace its binding effect.

Section 107(8) of the CGST Act requires an opportunity of hearing before a GST appeal is rejected on limitation, authorisation or pre-deposit objections; refusal of an adjournment does not displace natural justice. A short, sufficiently explained delay within the statutory extension may be condoned without a separate affidavit, and omitted proof of an authorised signatory's authority is a curable defect capable of ratification. Pre-deposit applies to disputed tax, not an interest-only demand, and alternative computations do not constitute admitted liability. Differential tax following a rate change attracts compensatory interest from the invoice-based time of supply; separately stated GST excludes cum-tax valuation. GSTR-3B interest specifically included in a notice remains subject to credit for interest already paid.

Input tax credit disallowance for mismatches cannot be sustained where the show-cause notice omits the particulars needed for an effective response. Producing a mismatch chart only after adjudication, when it was unavailable to the adjudicating authority, denies the taxpayer a meaningful opportunity to address the proposed disallowance. Failure to provide sufficient personal-hearing opportunity during first appellate proceedings further breaches principles of natural justice. The input tax credit claim requires fresh adjudication after complete mismatch particulars are supplied and adequate opportunity is granted to explain the claim.

Writ challenge to GST summons seeking information and documents was premature where the petitioner had supplied relevant records by representation. No coercive recovery, threat of arrest, or adverse order had arisen from the summons. Judicial interference was therefore unwarranted at that stage in the absence of those circumstances during the GST proceedings.

Assignment and transfer for consideration of leasehold rights in industrial plots allotted by GIDC constitute transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and are not subject to GST. The jurisdictional High Court's ruling on that characterisation remained binding on the Tribunal absent a stay or recall. The department's stated intention to seek review did not diminish the ruling's binding effect. Accordingly, GST was not leviable on the assignments, and the departmental appeals were dismissed.

Under the Explanation to Rule 110(4) of the CGST Rules, an appeal is filed only upon issuance of the final acknowledgement. A mandatory pre-deposit made after provisional acknowledgement, but within the time allowed to rectify a defect and before final acknowledgement, satisfies the pre-deposit requirement under Section 112(8). The timing objection is therefore treated as cured, enabling registration and admission of the appeal for consideration on merits.

Judicial review of the quantum of a FERA penalty permits interference on proportionality grounds only where the sanction is grossly excessive, unduly harsh, or so disproportionate that it shocks the court's conscience. A Tribunal cannot reduce a penalty without demonstrating and giving reasons that this high threshold is met; its reduction was therefore unsustainable. FERA penalty adjudication follows proof of breach of a statutory civil obligation, without requiring mens rea. Absence of criminal intent or monetary gain does not legally justify a reduced penalty. The appellate outcome restored the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority after setting aside the Tribunal's reduction.

Separate offshore-supply, domestic-supply and domestic-service contracts in a transmission project need not be treated as artificial splitting merely because project safeguards, acceptance testing and performance obligations apply. Where goods are supplied on CIF terms and title passes outside India, offshore-supply receipts are not taxable in India. An Indian associate conducting an independent business does not create a fixed-place or dependent-agent permanent establishment without legal, economic or other dependence. The presumptive computation provision for turnkey power projects does not extend to receipts from mere offshore supply under a separate contract.

Income Declaration Scheme declarations provide personal immunity only to declarants, but an accepted, tax-paid declaration may evidence the true source of share-capital and share-premium credits in another taxpayer's books where it specifically covers the credits and remains unrebutted; taxing that same income again risks double taxation. Before the source-of-source proviso applied, the taxpayer's burden for such credits was limited to identity, genuineness and creditworthiness, although apparent routing of its own advances through intermediaries required verification of commercial rationale. A banking trail alone does not exclude prior cash funding, requiring examination of relevant admissions. A search statement directly linking accommoda.....

Business set-up is distinct from commercial commencement: once a division is established and ready to perform its functions, expenditure cannot be denied solely because commercial operations have not begun. Contemporaneous evidence recording completion of the first phase and commencement of production supports the division's operational status; subsequent financial distress or action against assets cannot retrospectively alter that status. Appellate authorities must consider written submissions and material evidence, including annual reports, and provide reasoned findings rather than merely adopting assessment reasoning. Expenditure of a newly established division cannot be categorised wholesale as capital; deductibility of each item remains subject to applicable statutory conditions.